Talk:List of the verified oldest men

Longevity NA‑class Top‑importance

	This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Longevity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the World's oldest people on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LongevityWikipedia:WikiProject LongevityTemplate:WikiProject LongevityLongevity articles
NA	This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This redirect has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Archives

Index 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 100 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

As of

Wikipedia is not "assumed to be up to date". That's why we have the {{as of}} template, to mark potentially dated statements and to place them in a related category so that the article is more regularly reviewed and updated. See WP:DATED for further information. Some people seem to just revel in being wrong. Yworo (talk) 09:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "{{as of}}" before the number of verified living supercentenarians serves a completely different function than that in the table. The number, five, is invalidated the day one of them dies. We can only make a statement about how many there were as of the date of the reference used to support this number. Yworo (talk) 01:32, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not right to have this discussion in different locations. The subject as to using "as of" in the lede of an article is under discussion at Talk:List of the verified oldest people#As of in intro. Please add to the discussion (involving many editors there). The title of that discussion is "As of in intro", and there are many different aspects to that discussion. If you would like to introduce the use of the template {{as of}} there, feel free—so that everyone can discuss it.

In terms of your worry that "The number, five, is invalidated the day one of them dies", you are obviously not cognisant of the diligent work the editors at these articles perform. Quite contrary to your worries, information on these pages is updated minutes after information is confirmed (and therefore is not the concern you make it out to be). This is a point that was raised at the discussion linked above (with no dissenting replies). GFHandel ♬ 01:46, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We don't rely on the diligence of editors. Protecting the article against being dated hurts nothing. It was however, done incorrectly before. Nothing should ever say (as of today's day), how can that be verifiable? Yworo (talk) 01:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Flaw in the Age Calculator

When visiting the cache history, the age autocalculator displays the person's age as of today's date, rather than the age they were on the day one visited. For example, on April 2 2012, James McCoubrey was 110 years 202 days, but it now updates to "204" days when viewing.69.15.219.71 (talk) 15:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is probably quite complex to include the revision date into the calculation and I assume left out on purpose. If you want you can bring it up here: Wikipedia:Age calculation templates. Gap9551 (talk) 18:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rang order

Johnson Parks and Tomoji Tanabe lived exactly the same number of days, so it´s POV to give them different rang numbers.81.230.63.186 (talk) 18:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These lists are based on age in years and days, not days, so the rankling is correct. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 19:43, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn´t a ranking based on days be more NPOV? 81.230.63.186 (talk) 20:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. This has been discussed at length some time ago and the consensus was to use years and days. BTW, using days is also POV! DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Men top priority for verification !

While there has been hundreds of women reach age 112 verified. The amount of men who reach it is very small. Only 29 men have ever been verified age 112 or better. Once a man claims he is 110 the GRG should put him at top priority to be verified. So many men have claimed to be a supercentarian and have died before they are verified. I believe any man that is 109 and 6 months old should have the process started on verifying his age and on the day he turns 110 be place on the verified list. Ralph Terry the oldest living man in Great Britain born in July of 1903 should allready have been checked out by the GRG. The day he turns 110 he should be on the verified list. Is so sad to see a guy on the other or pending list die before being verified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.253.155.86 (talk) 16:49, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What has this to do with this article? Wiki does not verify claims. Take this to GRG, it does not belong here. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:53, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Date sorting on death date

The sorting on the death date sorts on day, month and then year. I have no idea why it would do that as the format looks correct and same as the dates entered for birth date. Birth date sorts correctly with year, month then day. Thanks, HJKeats (talk)

It may be something to do with living cases being displayed as text("Living") and therefore the column is sorted as text rather than as dates. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Title is the wrong way round.

This should be called "List of the oldest verified men", not "List of the verified oldest men". They are not verified as being the oldest, they are the oldest whose ages have been verified.88.167.22.75 (talk) 09:27, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]